Librarian re-skilling - Academic Commons · Web viewAdopting a DIY or Maker learning model gave...

Structured Abstract:

Purpose: This case study discusses the implementation of a skills development project aimed at

increasing the technology competencies of participating librarians in Columbia University’s

Science & Engineering Libraries, in response to changing instructional needs.

Design/methodology/approach: Adopting a DIY or Maker learning model gave librarians a

perfect opportunity to experience learning new technology skills just as their users encounter

them.

Findings: We conclude that this collaborative project methodology could potentially fit a large

variety of different library environments, providing other institutions with an excellent

opportunity to reassess and revamp staff skills, no matter their instructional focus.

Originality/value: The literature notes that previous library staff training models were largely

devised for newly matriculated Library and Information Science graduates preparing to enter the

workforce. Burgeoning technology developments require libraries to explore novel methods to

expose staff to new technology skills; this case study applies the programmatic lens of the Maker

Movement to a collaborative staff learning model.

Evolving Skills for Emerging Technologies | 1

Introduction

The Science & Engineering Division of Columbia University Libraries has undergone a period

of significant change that began in 2009 and still continues today. Over that time, the division

has evolved from a traditional department-based model consisting of eight libraries (Biology,

Chemistry, Geology, Geoscience, Engineering, Mathematics, Physics & Astronomy, and

Psychology) located in buildings spread across campus to a more consolidated structure. After

multiple library closures and moves, the libraries’ current configuration now consists of three

locations: a new Science & Engineering Library located in the recently constructed Northwest

Corner Building (an interdisciplinary science-focused building that opened in 2011 and contains

labs, classrooms, the library, and a cafe), and the Geology and Mathematics Libraries (which still

occupy their original locations). The collections formerly located in the closed libraries were

largely sent to ReCAP, Columbia University Library’s offsite storage facility (shared with

Princeton and New York Public Library). However, a small portion of frequently circulated

items was relocated to the Science & Engineering Library. What had once been a professional

staff of five subject specialist librarians (i.e. Biology Librarian, Engineering Librarian, etc)

working independently has been reimagined and organized along more consultative functional

roles that are less tied to subject expertise and employ a team-based approach. (See Table 1)

Table 1. Columbia University Libraries, Science & Engineering Division professional staff

Director, Science and Engineering Division

Head of Collection Development

Collection Assessment and Analysis Librarian

Operations and Undergraduate Coordinator


Emerging Technologies Coordinator

Digital Science Librarian

Research Services Coordinator

The new Science & Engineering Library featured high ceilings, attractive wood furniture,

lots of light, and great views of the campus. It quickly became a popular study space for students

from across the university community, but the new space also presented challenges to the

Science & Engineering professional staff. Librarians who had at one time been physically

located in close proximity to students and faculty in the various departments they served, and

who had leveraged this closeness to build strong relationships, were now located across campus

in a separate building. To help combat this physical distance, librarians identified a need to

create programming that would attract and engage users. As part of this effort to interact with

more of the campus community, librarians developed a series of workshops to be held during the

academic year. These workshops included topics focused on the needs of science students and

faculty; topics covered subjects like citation management products, how to write like a scientist,

how and where to get published, social media for academics and scientists, 3D printing, and

getting started with LaTex. But this programming plan also presented a challenge, as the new

Science & Engineering Library was not built with any classrooms or even general flexible space

that could be converted for workshops and events. The wood furniture that was aesthetically

pleasing to many users also served as a barrier to providing them with needed programming;

furniture was bolted to the library’s floor, making it impossible to reconfigure the space for

emerging instructional needs. Without a better option, most of these workshops were hosted in a

large auditorium connected to the Engineering School in a different building on campus. That


space was convenient, but not very practical; with theater seating and a large stage at front,

holding hands-on workshops was not feasible. Workshops were limited to lectures and panel

discussions. Further, it was not a library owned space, which meant that its availability varied.

Librarian staff soon realized that the need for more flexible space in which to hold hands-

on workshops, library instruction, and events was crucial to both their professional and

institutional goals. To create an appropriate space, a proposal was written to request that a

portion of the permanent wood furniture on the campus level floor of the library be removed and

replaced with moveable pieces to allow for more flexible and varied use of the space. The

proposal identified a way to do this while at the same time adding to the overall seating capacity

of the library, adding more user accessible power outlets, and including movable whiteboards,

which would enhance potential uses of that space. In the Spring of 2016, this project was

completed and the new area was branded the Science & Engineering Library’s “Innovation

Space.”

In planning for finally having a new space in which to hold hands-on, technology focused

workshops, the librarians anticipated that their significant experience in leading traditional

library instruction sessions and lecture style workshops would need some enhancement. Thus, a

Librarian Re-skilling Project was conceived and developed during the Fall 2015 semester to

address the following: what skills do librarians need to create and lead worthwhile hands-on

technology programming? What does and does not work in this hands-on teaching context?

What tools have the most potential for meeting our users’ educational goals and enhancing

student success?

Literature Review


Staff development and training remain integral cornerstones to librarianship; from

supporting the onboarding of new library professionals to aiding established employees in the

pursuit of knowledge, the process of developing new skills increases one’s ability to serve a

diverse community of users. Training processes are driven by a variety of factors — continually

evolving needs of library users, novel and emerging technologies, shifting library processes and

procedures, and profession-wide mandates are all potential influencers. This literature review

provides an overview of research that explores the connection between staff development, or

professional re-skilling efforts, and the redesign of library instruction spaces, both of which call

for assessment of an individual’s baseline skills in preparation for planning and supporting

impactful library programming that complement the new design.

Early literature on staff development and training within libraries often approach the

topic of redeveloping skills from the perspective of supporting newly appointed librarians. As

early as the 1980s, libraries began establishing rigorous professional development programs

meant to orient “younger, newer professional staff members into the complex structure of large

research libraries…encouraging them to look broadly at the issues facing” them (Grumling and

Sheehy 1993). Similar research suggests that such programs became the norm (as a direct result

of the Council on Library Resources offering “grant funding to libraries for the development of

internship programs” targeted at recently matriculated LIS graduate students), driving libraries

and library schools to focus on readiness preparation in a new and burgeoning public service era

(Clemens and Trevvett 1991; Marcum 1991; Clemens 1991; Albritton 1991). However, these

training programs began to shift with the introduction of information technology systems into

libraries; given that “the knowledge and skills required of virtual library staff…only recently

[became] part of library school curricula” at the time, the literature reflected an increased focus


on redeveloping the technological skills of all library staff in preparation for increased support of

emerging platforms (Tennant 1995). Prominent early examples of all-staff development and

technology training programs centered around library adoption of integrated or automated

systems; Margie Epple et. al. cited the need “for ongoing development and retraining of staff

who use and support these evolving systems”, with a careful eye toward establishing “well-

designed and executed staff training program[s]” that addressed those new competencies (Epple,

Gardner, and Warwick 1992). When examining the skills that were believed to be most relevant

to librarians entering the digital age, suggested skills included “managing electronic

environments”, “knowledge of various computing architectures”, and becoming “sysops

[systems operators]”, or overall “network managers” (Marmion 1998).

Once considered rare, such technologies are now embedded in a librarian’s everyday life;

computing systems have grown more ubiquitous since these articles were written, with mobile

and cloud environments having reshaped the digital landscape. So when considering current

technological competencies that librarians are expected to obtain, one must consider how

technologies are employed throughout libraries today; this means observing them through

programmatic lenses such as the Maker Movement. With its emphasis on fostering communities

of practice that deconstruct complicated computing systems to better understand how they work

across devices, this campaign has greatly affected the way that hobbyists learn, utilize, explore,

and produce knowledge. Erica Halverson and Kimberly Sheridan suggest that the movement can

be characterized in three ways: “making as a set of activities, makerspaces as communities of

practice, and makers as identities”; these conceptions coalesce with the notion that “libraries’

incorporation of making [requires] a new understanding of what libraries are for” (Halverson and

Sheridan 2014). As a result, many librarians and educators are now being asked to support


everything from wiring basic electronic circuits with Arduinos to explaining how the Oculus Rift

and Microsoft Hololens display immersive augmented and virtual reality environments. Because

these technologies and systems are constantly changing, supporting them requires establishing

training methods that are flexible enough to accommodate a variety of technology options and

capable of addressing diverse learning styles. Investigating staff development models that

support the use of dynamic technologies, while remaining cognizant of the need to develop time-

effective training models, is of critical importance for libraries.

Training models in librarianship are driven by more than rapid technological

advancements; other factors impacting technology adoption and library support of emerging

platforms include calls to completely reassess the design of library instructional spaces. When

examining the historical implications surrounding library restructuring, early references to

instructional or communal library spaces were referred to as “Information Commons” in or

around “the mid-1990s” (Turner, Welch, and Reynolds 2013). On the staff side, Ariee Turner et

al. argued that the early emergence of such spaces “typically [brought] together the library

reference space and the IT services, which in the past [had] been quite separate”, effectively

eroding the boundaries once separating these two under new modes of pedagogical inquiry

(Turner, Welch, and Reynolds 2013). One method that appears heavily throughout the literature

involves a constructivist model, which diverges from “the traditional, teacher-centred approach

to a more flexible, student-centred approach” that values individual knowledge formation

constructed through the lens of the learner (Turner, Welch, and Reynolds 2013). Library

information commons, learning commons, and other digital hubs were then seen as an

opportunity to accommodate these while addressing university-wide pedagogical mandates and

attaining “greater degree[s] of institutional alignment” (Sullivan 2010). Turner et al. provide an


excellent analysis of the literature that probes ambiguity surrounding the naming conventions

associated with library learning centers, asserting that “information commons and learning

spaces in academic libraries” operate under very different “working definition[s]” (Turner,

Welch, and Reynolds 2013). However, more recent commons now situate some iteration of those

student-centered pedagogical models within newly designed library educational spaces that

support “self-directed” or collaborative learning (Turner, Welch, and Reynolds 2013). Further,

those commons might also support “fortuitous” learning that happens “outside the classroom, in

the spontaneous and informal interaction of campus life” (Sullivan 2010). Recent analyses

parallel this; in a 2015 survey of upcoming library trends, the New Media Consortium notes

“librarians are expected to become more involved in facilitating innovative instructional and

research methods” alongside “integrating makerspaces that invite creative tinkering and

experimental learning” (Becker 2016). This movement coincides with the removal of “books and

serial journals” in exchange for “flexible arrangements” that promote “informal learning among

students beyond scheduled class times”(Becker 2016). Such initiatives continue to be an

influential factor in the creation of digital media labs, makerspaces, and “active learning spaces”

that redefine the way librarians approach library instruction and student learning; supporting the

technologies, and pedagogical models, that now thrive within those spaces remains central to the

library’s mandate in today’s academic environment (Becker 2016).

Literature discussing librarian-centric technology training programs is seemingly absent

from most of the field’s scholarly conversation (Nichols Hess 2014). A few notable examples

include: Amanda Hess’ exploration of staff development from the perspective of e-learning and

online instruction, a professional development course called “Emergent Technologies”

emphasizing the use of novel Web 2.0 platforms at the University of Western Australia, and a


“Technology Challenge” implemented at Brigham Young University’s Harold B. Library

(Nichols Hess 2014; Pegrum and Kiel 2011; Quinney, Smith, and Galbraith 2010). Underpinning

each of these programs were a rigorous set of methods that defined their success: pre-assessment

of staff strengths and weaknesses, particularly via pre-distrusted surveys (Brown 2015; Nichols

Hess 2014), and an emphasis on combining “self-directed” and collaborative learning approaches

for deeper understanding (Nichols Hess 2014; Pegrum and Kiel 2011; Quinney, Smith, and

Galbraith 2010). However, Hess emphasized a key point that further demonstrates how such

programs became impactful at their respective institutions: by devoting energy to better

understanding “…how librarians can be encouraged to build their technology knowledge

continuously and independently, as well as a part of a broader cohort engaged in institutionally

situated learning”, emphasizing the importance of “consider[ing] the specific goal or desired

outcome of professional learning experiences” (Nichols Hess 2014).

Articulating the Problem

The Science & Engineering Library’s “Innovation Space” was designed to be flexible in

order to support varied functional uses: individual and group study space, library-held events like

book talks and game nights, instructional space for workshops, and maker-like activities. To

encourage hands-on technology engagement in the space, the library decided to make use of

previously purchased Raspberry Pis and Arduino Unos in workshops and also to circulate to

interested users. The Raspberry Pi is a microcomputer capable of running a full-scale operating

system and the Arduino Uno is an open-source microcontroller that uses code built on top of the


Processing programming language to drive any number of input devices; the size, design, and

affordability of these make them excellent choices for hobbyist electronics projects.

Before completing the Innovation Space, these technologies were initially used in

research projects created by students temporarily working within Columbia University Libraries’

Digital Center Intern Program. This experience is rooted in research support activities that span

three of the libraries’ Digital Centers: Humanities, Sciences, and Social Sciences. It recruits

students with a keen interest in digital scholarship who then undertake hands-on projects

alongside librarian mentors. Digital Center interns in the Sciences worked on very specific

projects that were difficult to implement widely or use beyond the scope of the intern’s work.

Beyond several show-and-tell events, such as internal demonstrations and small public

gatherings, these technologies were not being used widely by library staff, nor were they being

promoted to, or used by, students.

The Science & Engineering librarians recognized a need to better utilize these devices, so

focus shifted toward creating a staff learning model that would lead to tangible outcomes — like

gaining the ability to teach maker-like, library-led workshops for users. The Librarian Re-skilling

Project grew out of this assessment, along with a desire to make effective use of the Innovation

Space. Primary goals included cultivating deep expertise in the Raspberry Pi and Arduino

platforms, so as to better promote their exploration to library patrons and support their use in

scholarly or hobbyist research. Librarians also wanted to align their expertise with emerging

research efforts being explored throughout Columbia’s Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (STEM) communities. However, the larger end goal was to develop impactful

library programming and workshops based on knowledge gleaned during internal re-skilling

efforts. These workshops would better demonstrate avenues of use for the tools, provide


transferrable skills users could potentially apply to their own research, and could ultimately

empower students to borrow and experiment with the devices on their own.

The Science & Engineering librarians had undertaken some technology-based training

initiatives before, but those were not collaborative team efforts and they often found that any

new skills learned eventually faded. Thus, the final proposal for the Librarian Re-Skilling Project

represented a semester-long, structured learning process that required participants to

collaboratively choose technology projects as one large group, break into pairs to teach

themselves smaller components of the larger project, and then iteratively present those learning

outcomes back to the team – thus forming a knowledge base that everyone contributes to. From

the ground up, this re-skilling initiative allowed librarians to cultivate thorough knowledge of an

integral part while still reaping the benefits of learning from colleagues about how other facets of

the technology operated. All of this provided participants with a holistic understanding of the

Arduino Uno and Raspberry Pi platforms without requiring staff to invest more time in learning

the entire system on their own.

After the project’s inaugural Fall 2015 meeting, each librarian was asked to identify two

hands-on Raspberry Pi and Arduino projects; the only caveats were that each had to be

collaborative in nature, so that the group could work on them together, and should have been

capable of building the group’s skills as a whole. Participants were given two weeks to identify

them (one project for each technology) using relevant literature and project-focused websites.

When they reconvened, each librarian pitched their proposed projects to the larger re-skilling

team, highlighting what it involved and why they chose it. Each member then voted on their top

project picks that were of most interest to them. See below for the full list of potential projects

that were identified.


Arduino Projects:

“Building a Simple Arduino Robot” (House 2015) “3D Printed Walking Robot (Klann Linkage)” (Bit-Boy 2015) “Twitter Mood Light - The World’s Mood in a Box” (RandomMatrix 2015) “3D printed Robot Finger” (Langevin 2015) “Magic Crystal Mood Ball” (Baunilha 2015) “Quadcopter” (“Mechatronics Project Site” 2015) “Talking Clock” (“Google Code Archive - Long-Term Storage for Google Code Project

Hosting.” 2016)

Raspberry Pi Projects:

“OctoPrint - Web interface for 3D printers” (Häußge 2015) “Hacking together a cheap but effective infra-red camera” (School of Biological Science,

University of Bristol 2016) “Simple time lapse camera in coffee tin” (Fotosyn 2016) “Magic Mirror” (Teeuw 2015) “Gameboy” (Brothers 2015)

The final ones chosen were: “Building a Simple Arduino Robot”, the “Magic Crystal Mood

Ball”, and the “Simple Time Lapse Camera in a Coffee Tin.” The original suggestion to choose

two projects was overhauled after discussing the merits of incorporating a third; the “Magic

Crystal Mood Ball” project provided an easy starting point for participants, and would serve as a

valuable building block preparing the group to work on more complicated projects down the line.

These three options edged out other ideas because they fit several criteria: first, they were

projects the group was excited to work on, which was crucial to motivating staff. Next, they were

reasonable in scope and would be accomplishable in a practical amount of time; the projects

didn’t require too much additional or expensive equipment. Finally, they would provide tangible

learning outcomes that staff were striving for. Once project choices were finalized, additional

parts that were not included in the pre-purchased technology kits were ordered and a timeline for

project completion was established.

Project Methodology


The group recognized at the outset that project management skills would be crucial to the

success of the re-skilling project. All participants had taken part in initiatives in the past that

began with a high level of enthusiasm and dedication, and then gradually lost momentum. To

prevent this from happening, the group agreed that this project required a detailed structure and

schedule, which was subsequently devised and shared using the library’s Google Calendar and

Apps instance. The group then selected a team leader (the Emerging Technologies Librarian)

who would set the schedule and keep the team on track. Bi-weekly group meetings were planned

and this schedule was adhered to whenever possible. In between meetings, group members

would pair up, and the group leader would assign each pair new skills or subject areas (related to

the current Arduino or Raspberry Pi project) to learn; each pair would then be responsible for

teaching those skills or subjects to the full group during the next meeting. Librarian pairs would

meet in the interim between group meetings to research, experiment, and discuss strategies for

presenting learned skills back to the larger group; these pair activities were less structured and

allowed ample time for experimentation and failure. Coupling highly structured meetings and

less formal experimental sessions proved to be essential to the project’s success.

Educating oneself (often by using online resources) can be seen as one of the defining

characteristics of D.I.Y. and maker culture. As librarians, the group had long been familiar with

this type of learning, and was able to adapt to this model fairly easily. Columbia University

Libraries provides access to Lynda.com, an online video tutorial platform with courses covering

thousands of software products for varying skill levels, including beginner level introductory

courses in using both Arduinos and Raspberry Pis. This was a great opportunity for participants

to experience learning new skills through Lynda.com courses — something that the librarians at

Columbia frequently recommend users try. The Science & Engineering librarians often get


requests for instruction on an extremely wide range of software products, many of which require

a substantial investment of time and effort to achieve proficiency in, and are therefore beyond

their ability to include in a scalable instruction program. The subscription to Lynda.com allows

librarians to refer users to professionally produced, high quality instruction videos on almost any

software product they may need to use. This project gave librarians a perfect opportunity to

experience learning new technology skills in an online tutorial environment, just as their users

encounter it.

In advance of the first meetings, the following Lynda.com beginner level courses were

selected, and all group members agreed to complete each on their own time:

“Up and running with Arduino” (Fisher 2016)

“Up and running with Raspberry Pi” (Niemann-Ross 2016)

These courses provided solid instructional foundation for beginner-level use of these

technologies. They also served as a reference; project librarians could return to them whenever

they needed a refresher on content or help with completing additional tasks. In addition to these

Lynda.com courses, the group also found it necessary to consult other online resources

frequently throughout the project, including hobbyist discussion boards, coding libraries, and

D.I.Y. or maker themed blogs. Rarely did the group encounter “one stop” online resources that

contained every necessary answer in order to complete a required task; much more frequently,

librarians drew from multiple sources when learning new skills and preparing to teach them to

the group.

The agenda for each meeting followed this basic structure:

1. New skills sharing: As mentioned above, in between meetings, librarians would work in

pairs to research and become familiar with a task or skills needed to complete project


next steps. These were selected and assigned to pairs by the group leader. In meetings,

each librarian pair would introduce the skills they had been assigned and would instruct

the group on that topic. This comprised a range of teaching strategies: it could include

creating worksheets or diagrams, hands-on Arduino and Raspberry Pi demos, or sharing

laptops to go over basic coding.

2. Hands-on time: the group would then work together on completing technical tasks laid

out in each project outline. This allowed participants to dedicate less structured time to

experimentation with their assigned partner at a later time.

3. Plan for next time: if the group successfully completed scheduled tasks for that day, the

team leader would then confirm the assignments for the following meeting. If tasks were

not completed because something did not work as expected, or new or different supplies

were needed, the schedule was readjusted to accommodate this. Participants soon learned

about the importance of building in extra time to allow for unplanned setbacks, especially

when working on hands-on D.I.Y. technology projects such as these.

While much of this work is done collaboratively, the team’s appointed leader has a set of

responsibilities that greatly impact the group’s learning outcomes. In this program, the Emerging

Technologies Librarian served as project manager, resource-finder, and technology

troubleshooter throughout the process. In addition to scheduling meetings, the team leader

established feasible project deadlines, captured notes and materials shared during each session

(summarizing the former for email distribution to the team), and communicated the group’s

progress with key stakeholders. The leader also took steps to provide supplementary resources on

the technologies being studied; this became even more essential when completing projects that

emanated from websites offering scant details on the why behind the work. For example, when


the team was constructing a self-driving car from the “Building a Simple Arduino Robot”

project, the Emerging Technologies Librarian researched authoritative sources that discussed

how various parts of the robotic car (like the servo motors powering its wheels) worked and how

they differed from alternative choices (such as DC motors). Assigning these gave participants a

starting base for their project piece and aided deeper learning outcomes. However, what proved

most crucial was the leader’s commitment to regularly soliciting suggestions for improving the

learning process; when undertaken, this helps ensure that all learning styles are equally

addressed, no matter the project at hand.

Outcomes and Outreach

The Librarian Re-Skilling Project was projected to run from September 2015 - December

2015, but that deadline shifted in order to provide the group with flexible options for completing

the final project alongside other designated professional responsibilities. Thus, it was formally

completed at the end of January 2016; the last meeting served as an opportunity for the group to

collectively discuss meaningful outcomes and determine whether initial learning goals were met.

The program ran for a total of 12 sessions over the course of four and a half months, and it

featured the following structure:

Table 2. Librarian Re-Skilling Project Timeline

Week Project Topic

Weeks 1 - 2 Pre-Planning Develop learning goals Project decision phase

Weeks 2 - 4 Magic Crystal Mood Ball Complete “Up and Running with Arduino” Lynda course

Re-create mood ball collaboratively


Weeks 4 - 7 Building a Simple Arduino Robot

Required pre-reading Divvied up project components to learn:

servo motors, ultrasonic distance sensors, and project code

Weeks 7 - 11 Simple Time Lapse Camera in a Coffee Tin

Required pre-reading Assignment: test Raspberry Pi shell

commands — “raspistill” and “raspivid”

Divvied up project components to learn: shell scripting, Python programming, timelapse video creation

Week 12 Final Meeting Reflection on project experience, outcomes, and devising of next steps

Program Assessment:

Keys to Success

Managing expectations and participant buy-in: A project this lengthy and time

consuming can only succeed if participants are willing to accept the time commitment

required. For this reason, it was essential that project librarians discuss frankly what

would be involved before beginning the work, and then gauge whether all were

interested in participating and able to accommodate projects alongside their normal

work schedules. Because this was a peer-initiated, voluntary project, it was possible

for individual librarians to opt out if they wished.

Structure and scheduling: Using project management principles to break up and

schedule the program as a series of discrete tasks was essential. Google Calendar

proved excellent for scheduling and Google Apps was essential for properly

documenting, collaborating, and sharing information between all involved. These

tools were especially useful given that participants used them extensively in their day-

to-day work. Email reminders, summaries, and next steps from the project leader kept


everyone on the same page and gave the group a clear sense of what had been

accomplished so far, and what still needed further work.

Participant engagement: Starting with diverse, multi-component Arduino and

Raspberry Pi projects engaged project participants throughout the process; they also

allowed individual librarians to selectively learn the components that were of most

interest to them. For example, one librarian chose to work more closely with coding

libraries while another learned strategies for assembling a time-lapse video in

Photoshop (accomplished using still photos captured by the Raspberry Pi’s camera).

As the group progressed, they amassed tangible skills to showcase during workshops

and other programmatic demonstrations.

Remaining flexible: Given that participants were responsible for managing this

project alongside pressing full-time work demands, it was essential that the program

be flexible in its approach; having concrete assignments, pre-readings, and learning

aids established is key, but being able to readjust these is what helps create

programmatic methods that grow with your staff. To do this effectively, the

program’s leader must consistently gauge the temperature of participants, making

assessment and alteration a continuous part of the learning process.

Challenges

Learning styles: Early learning methods solely emphasized collaborative work, but

this proved to be counter-productive for some participants; the group quickly

discovered that the best form of practice was a hybrid model bridging collaboration

with self-instruction; participants were then encouraged to manually work with the


technologies in pairs and on their own whenever possible. Learning was also

impacted by the low number of available technologies for hands-on experience. For

example, the group only had access to one Arduino throughout the duration of the

project; this made it difficult to self-study and made scheduling time with the device

challenging. The Raspberry Pi projects were more effectively accomplished, as there

were more than enough kits to distribute. Suggested future implementations of this

project should feature enough equipment for each participant; even then, project

leaders should consider ways to incentivize their use for effective engagement.

Lack of reliable source material: A common drawback with researching emerging

fields is just how difficult it can be to unearth quality or authoritative information.

The group relied heavily on web discussion posts that discussed similarly themed

issues participants were facing, but the answers provided were dependent upon

variables that differed vastly from our project scope. Often, group members stumbled

upon incomplete or problematic suggestions when trying to implement code

segments, wire circuits, or power added components. This required dedicating

additional time to troubleshooting and making sense of incorrect data. However,

navigating these challenges provided a side benefit that led toward a deeper, more

holistic understanding of how to troubleshoot these technologies from the user’s

perspective.

Program Outcomes:

Innovation Space Workshops:


Led by a desire to deliver library workshops geared at deeper learning, participating

librarians took knowledge gained from this experience and leveraged existing instructional

offerings to create two programs: themed “Library Clinics” meant to engage students on topics

of interest and introductory technology workshops for cultivating hands-on, collaborative

learning based around tinkering with small parts of a larger project; the latter builds upon the

same method of inquiry used during the Librarian Re-Skilling Project.

Library Clinics were devised to offer insight on bits of relevant library programming or

technology platforms during quick, one hour drop-in events — hence the “clinic” phrasing.

Librarians set up a designated table on the Science & Engineering Library’s first floor,

demonstrated some sort of product or technology to passing students (for example, one clinic

showcased the Arduino project’s self-driving car), and shared information about library

resources related to the topic at hand. Alternatively, the hands-on workshops allowed users to

tinker with Arduinos and Raspberry Pis while emphasizing project development strategies; they

are aimed at beginner audiences and step through two stages: a “basics” overview that features

hands-on making and a “prototyping” session meant to get attendees brainstorming their own

project ideas. The resulting workshops were framed as follows during the Spring 2016 semester.

Arduino Workshops:

Title: Arduino Basics: Sensors and Servos

Description: The Arduino platform is a powerful, open-source microcontroller capable of

prototyping electronics projects and creating functional devices that interact with the world

around us. This workshop will introduce you to basic Arduino concepts, the Processing

programming language that drives it, and several sensors and servos capable of recording or

responding to data taken from your surroundings. This workshop is intended for beginners; we


assume no prior Arduino or electronics knowledge. Please bring your laptop (preferably with the

Arduino IDE already installed) and some creative energy; we’ll have several Arduinos on hand,

but we also encourage you to bring your own if you have one.

Title: Arduino Basics: Prototyping Your First Project

Description: So you have an Arduino and you’re not afraid to use it, but … what now? What can

you do with it? What do you want to do with it? Starting a project from scratch can be daunting,

and it’s easy to put it off while your hardware collects dust. If you’re currently scratching your

head about what to do next with your Arduino, this workshop will provide you with strategies to

get your project ideas off the ground. Using interactive group work and brainstorming exercises,

we will provide you with tips and tricks on how to prototype your first project from start to

finish.

Raspberry Pi Workshops:

Title: Python and Pi: Automation to Make Your Life Easier

Description: Raspberry Pis are dynamic microcomputers capable of integrating seamlessly into

computing and electronics projects. Interested in learning the basics? This workshop will

introduce you to the Raspberry Pi’s hardware and software capabilities and, using a sample

Python project, provide you with a working example of how to automate simple data scraping

tasks. This workshop is intended for beginners; we assume no prior Raspberry Pi or Python

knowledge. We’ll have several Pis on hand, but please feel free to bring your own if you already

have one!

Title: Pi From Scratch: Prototyping Your First Project


Description: So you have a Raspberry Pi and you’re not afraid to use it, but … what now? What

can you do with it? What do you want to do with it? Starting a project from scratch can be

daunting, and it’s easy to put it off while your hardware collects dust. If you’re currently

scratching your head about what to do next with your Pi, this workshop will provide you with

strategies to get your project ideas off the ground. Using interactive group work and

brainstorming exercises, we will provide you with tips and tricks on how to prototype your first

project from start to finish.

Workshop success was gauged by recording strong attendance numbers for each session,

using follow-up participant surveys to identify what students learned, and by measuring the

uptick in follow-up consultation requests for the Raspberry Pi and Arduino platforms. The group

plans on continuing and expanding these workshops over time.

Outreach:

Library Workshop Marketing

In Kathy Dempsey’s book on library marketing, she affirms the importance of a brand

identity’s ability to “build loyalty”, which is essential for connecting with library communities;

programs are only advantageous if people are aware of their existence (Dempsey 2009). To

ensure the success of the Librarian Re-Skilling Project’s instructional outcomes, the division

created original branding for the above workshops with the goal of inspiring brand loyalty across

Columbia’s science disciplines. Using pre-established marketing channels, including a semi-

monthly newsletter, library-specific blog, Twitter, Tumblr, LCD screen on the Science &


Engineering Library’s first floor, website advertisements, and print flyers, librarians promoted

events as widely as possible.


Creating a branded identity for the library’s Innovation Space was foundational to this process;

the group created an attractive logo in the hopes that recognition of it would better establish the

location and further define activities deployed within the space.


Conclusion

After assessing the Librarian Re-Skilling Project’s overall experience and outcomes, the

group deemed it successful and in line with initial intended goals. Both tangible and intangible

learning outcomes ensured that each librarian in the division would be able to lead or assist in

workshops on creating projects with an Arduino or Raspberry Pi, while also building valuable

technology skills to be used in service of Columbia’s scholarly community. Several unexpected

outcomes also greatly benefited the librarians involved; namely, completing these projects shed

valuable insight on learning new technologies from the perspective of a first-time learner. Many

of the Science & Engineering Library’s users experience similar challenges and frustrations

when attempting to learn such technologies on their own, allowing the group to connect with

them more meaningfully when teaching or offering one-on-one consultations. The project also

allowed librarians to grow individually; some professional staff members had no experience

programming before, and can now manipulate and understand how languages like Python and

Processing work. Others were already familiar with those concepts, but have now gained a

different set of skills, like deploying microcontrollers and microcomputers within concrete

projects. More importantly, completing the staff development initiative allowed participating

librarians to come away knowing they could work together as a team to learn something new.

The Librarian Re-Skilling Project could provide other institutions with an excellent

opportunity to reassess and revamp staff skills, no matter their instructional focus. Successful

implementation requires key buy-in from participating staff at all levels, thoughtful leadership to

direct programmatic efforts, and continued commitment to assessing one’s personal and

professional growth throughout the experience.


References

Albritton, Rosie L. 1991. “Assessing Early Outcomes of the Intern-Scholar Program at the University of Missouri-Columbia.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 17 (2): 77.

Baunilha. 2015. “ITP2P » Blog Archive » Stupid Pet Trick.” Accessed September 30. http://itp.nyu.edu/~bms415/blog/2011/10/stupid-pet-trick/.

Becker, Samantha. 2016. “NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Library Edition.” Horizon Reports. Accessed May 11. http://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2015-library-edition/.

Bit-Boy. 2015. “3D Printed Walking Robot (Klann Linkage).” Accessed September 30. http://www.instructables.com/id/3D-Printed-Walking-Robot-Klann-Linkage/.

Brothers, Ruiz. 2015. “PiGRRL - Raspberry Pi Gameboy.” Accessed September 30. https://learn.adafruit.com/pigrrl-raspberry-pi-gameboy/overview.

Brown, Elizabeth H. 2015. “Keeping It Current: Avenues for Staff Development.” PNLA Quarterly, 48–52.

Clemens, Bonnie J. 1991. “The Internship Program at the University of Georgia.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 17 (2): 75.

Clemens, Bonnie J., and Melissa Trevvett, eds. 1991. “Integrating New Professionals into Large Academic Libraries: A Symposium.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 17 (2): 68.

Dempsey, Kathy. 2009. Accidental Library Marketer. Medford, US: Information Today, Inc.Epple, Margie, Judy Gardner, and Robert T. Warwick. 1992. “Staff Training and Automated

Systems: 20 Tips for Success.” Teaching OPAC Use 18 (May): 87–89.Fisher, Peggy. 2016. “Up and Running with Arduino.” Lynda.com - from LinkedIn. Accessed

August 24. http://www.lynda.com/Arduino-tutorials/Up-Running-Arduino/197594-2.html.

Fotosyn. 2016. “Time-Lapse Camera Project for Raspberry Pi.” F. Accessed December 15. http://fotosyn.com/timelapse/.

“Google Code Archive - Long-Term Storage for Google Code Project Hosting.” 2016. Accessed December 15. https://code.google.com/archive/p/chlonos/.

Grumling, Dennis K., and Carolyn A. Sheehy. 1993. “Professional Development Program: Training for Success Within Academic Librarianship.” College & Research Libraries 54 (1): 17–24. doi:10.5860/crl_54_01_17.

Halverson, Erica Rosenfeld, and Kimberly M. Sheridan. 2014. “The Maker Movement in Education.” Harvard Educational Review 84 (4): 495–504.

Häußge, Gina. 2015. “OctoPrint.org.” OctoPrint.org. Accessed September 30. http://octoprint.org/.

House, Nathan. 2015. “Building a Simple Arduino Robot.” Make: DIY Projects and Ideas for Makers. Accessed September 30. http://makezine.com/projects/building-a-simple-arduino-robot/.

Langevin, Gael. 2015. “Finger Starter | InMoov.” Accessed September 30. http://inmoov.fr/finger-starter/.

Marcum, Deanna. 1991. “CLR’s ‘Internships for Recent Graduates’ Program.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 17 (2): 69.

Marmion, Dan. 1998. “Facing the Challenge: Technology Training in Libraries.” Information Technology and Libraries 17 (4): 216–18.


“Mechatronics Project Site.” 2015. Mechatronics Project Site. Accessed September 30. http://robots.dacloughb.com/.

Nichols Hess, Amanda. 2014. “Byte-Sized Pieces: Equipping Academic Librarians to Integrate Technology into Library Instruction through Manageable, Maintainable, and Meaningful Staff Development.” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 19 (3/4): 283–96. doi:10.1080/10875301.2014.939323.

Niemann-Ross, Mark. 2016. “Up and Running with Raspberry Pi.” Lynda.com - from LinkedIn. Accessed August 24. http://www.lynda.com/Raspberry-Pi-tutorials/Up-Running-Raspberry-Pi/191267-2.html.

Pegrum, Mark, and Ralph Kiel. 2011. “‘Changing the Way We Talk’: Developing Librarians’ Competence in Emerging Technologies through a Structured Program.” College & Research Libraries 72 (6): 583–98.

Quinney, Kayla L., Sara D. Smith, and Quinn Galbraith. 2010. “Bridging the Gap: Self-Directed Staff Technology Training.” Information Technology and Libraries 29 (4): 205–13.

RandomMatrix. 2015. “Twitter Mood Light - The World’s Mood in a Box.” Instructables.com. Accessed September 30. http://www.instructables.com/id/Twitter-Mood-Light-The-Worlds-Mood-in-a-Box/.

School of Biological Science, University of Bristol. 2016. “Hacking Together a Cheap but Effective Infra-Red Camera.” Accessed September 30. https://seanrands.com/2013/10/24/ir-camera/.

Sullivan, Rebecca M. 2010. “Common Knowledge: Learning Spaces in Academic Libraries.” College & Undergraduate Libraries 17 (2–3): 130–48. doi:10.1080/10691316.2010.481608.

Teeuw, Michael. 2015. “Magic Mirror.” Xonay Labs | Michael Teeuw. Accessed September 30. http://michaelteeuw.nl/post/84026273526/and-there-it-is-the-end-result-of-the-magic.

Tennant, Roy. 1995. “The Virtual Library Foundation: Staff Training and Support.” Information Technology & Libraries 14 (1): 46.

Turner, Arlee, Bernadette Welch, and Sue Reynolds. 2013. “Learning Spaces in Academic Libraries -- A Review of the Evolving Trends.” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 44 (4): 226–34. doi:10.1080/00048623.2013.857383.


Librarian re-skilling - Academic Commons · Web viewAdopting a DIY or Maker learning model gave...

Documents

Transcript of Librarian re-skilling - Academic Commons · Web viewAdopting a DIY or Maker learning model gave...